Am I just drunk or is your friend not very on point here? |
|
The purpose of Science is not the establish the most accurate depiction of reality possible. Its purpose is to enable the mind to most easily assign value to various assertions. An assertion supported by scientific evidence is not more true than an assertion void of evidence, it is simply a more valuable idea to utilize when making decisions. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 03-12-2012 at 08:24 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Am I just drunk or is your friend not very on point here? |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
One thing I can tell you is that your response to my posts displays a very inaccurate reflection of my opinion. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
You're not drunk, but maybe you are in our subjective world according to Omnis. Yes, yes I think you are drunk and the idea that you have not ingested mass quantities of alcohol which effect your body does not invalidate my perception that you are drunk. |
|
'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright
I never said there were. My claim is simply that true and false are not determinable from a subjective standpoint. There is not subjective opinion which is more in line with the objective reality than another. The only way in which one subjective viewpoint can be better than another is by the value it serves the individual's decision making process. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
|
|
'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright
The nice thing about measuring is that it provides good statistical advantage to base decisions upon. But you're conflating the measurements made by the subjective observer with the measurements existing in objective reality. The epistemological relativist point of view is that if 500 people were to measure something and 499 get one measurement and 1 person gets a different measurement, the 1 person's measurement is not objectively wrong, their assessment simply isn't advantageous compared to the 99.5% majority and decisions made related to the measurement are preferable if based upon the result of the 499 rather than the one. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 03-15-2012 at 10:38 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
|
|
'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright
Being condescending isn't going to make you any better at arguing your viewpoint, in fact it makes you appear dismissive which strikes me as though you don't have much confidence in your own viewpoint because you're unwilling to argue it. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Ditto. I was giving you an argument to use against your friend's perspective since you apparently were unable to spot the fallacy. Your friend apparently doesn't know how rationality works anymore than you do since his argument is about on par with what I would expect from you. Did you find a problem (that you have failed to explicate) with my rebuttal of your friend's position or was assuming that I was opposed to your opinion just a knee-jerk reaction on your part? |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
I just don't have much tolerance for nihilism because so many who find out what it is waste their intellectual power trying to promote it because its groovy or something like that. |
|
'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright
Actually it is not. Humans can place value upon scientific studies but science itself does not place value on itself or its study. Science can show you what happens when you put two hydrogens and an oxygen together but it does not say why you should put it together nor if it is good to do so etc. |
|
'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright
First off, is it 2.000 as a real number or 2 as an integer? |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
Science places value on specific scientific statements. It doesn't say why one should do something or if it's good. It says if the statement is correct or not. This is a valuation. With statistical inference it can say how likely it is for the statement to be correct. Statements of biblical creationism are rejected by the normative process of science and valued far less than statements that take place within the scope of evolutionary biology. Some of those will even be "de-valued" over time. |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
If you make up math rules that don't make any sense any doesn't come out correctly mathematically, then yea you are wrong. You are always wrong. You are absolutely, 100% objectively wrong. We can easily prove you are wrong. Just because you try to act philosophical doesn't mean you are any less wrong. |
|
Who's making up math rules that don't make sense? |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
That isn't a different context, that is a different equation. Context doesn't really matter, leaving stuff out obviously does matters. You might as well say, 2+2=5 if you add one more. Though 2+2+1 is a totally different equation, than 2+2. |
|
Alric, you're having a hard time here. It helps to have a clue what you're talking about. There were no equations in the post to which you are responding. There were (as I said) various mathematical statements concerning the relation between objects and operators on said objects. The truth or falsity of those statements were dependent upon the context in which they were taken. |
|
Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 03-17-2012 at 01:43 AM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
If you say two things are equal to one another that is an equation. So yea, there was equations in the previous posts on this thread. |
|
Philosopher Stoned: |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 03-17-2012 at 05:15 PM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
protip: The ring Q[X] has much more in common with Z than any of the Z/nZ do. Z/nZ will always have a finite ideal structure whereas Z and Q[X] (or R[X] or C[X]) have infinite ideal structures. Or rather, for any n, one can cook up a strictly monotonic nesting of ideals n deep. Also, they both have an infinite amount of maximal (and hence, being Noetherian, prime) ideals. finally, I would just call Z/nZ Zn but that involves subscripts. LaTeX makes this stuff so much easier. To get subscripts one has to type tags or use the mouse. In LaTeX it's just _{n}. So much nicer. It should be an easy extension... |
|
Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 03-17-2012 at 11:23 PM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
No, you are totally wrong. Notice the first part of the word, equation. It comes from the word equal. If there is an equal sign and the statement is comparing two values then it is an equation. There doesn't have to be an unknown, and you don't have to solve it. You are totally wrong on this. |
|
Alric, you're probably a moron. I've never seen you say anything intelligent that someone else hasn't already told you. You probably never will. Your mind is far too riddled with assumptions and you think you know way to much to even contemplate doing any such thing. Just letting you know. And it's ok. The vast majority of people are so stupid that we would be living in huts and using fire for warmth if there weren't (very!) occasionally intelligent people to actually figure things out. After that, the stupid people can do stuff. Don't take credit above your class and know your place. |
|
Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 03-18-2012 at 01:22 AM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
I hate people that think common sense is a good thing. They're almost as bad a creationists! Common sense is a prison in which small minds rot till the body that manufactures them dies. |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
Yea I am stupid, yet you need to look up 'equation' on Wikipedia in order to understand what it is? Then even though Wikipedia proved that you are an idiot and were wrong you tried to twist the wording to some how say you are right. Yet you are still wrong because your are taking the quote out of context. |
|
Bookmarks